IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

DOLORES (DEE) BARRETT : 

 : 

 V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW 

 : 

THE GREATER HATBORO CHAMBER NO. 02 -cv-4421 

OF COMMERCE, INC.; JOHN J.(BUD) : 

AIKEN, AND MICKEY GLANTZ : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT

AND NOW, this day of September, 2002 comes Plaintiff Dolores (Dee) Barrett, by and 

through counsel, Anita F. Alberts Esquire, and respectfully requests this Honorable Court to 

dismiss, deny and overrule defendants' motion to dismiss for the following reasons: 

 1. Plaintiff was the only employee of the Greater Hatboro Chamber of Commerce and 

brings her claim of sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and constructive discharge under 

the Pennsylvania Constitution ERA, Article I § 28, and under common law wrongful discharge 

for violation of public policy. She has no access to the PHRA. 

 2. Defendants knowingly argue against the most fundamental concept of Constitutional 

law, in contending that Pennsylvania's Constitution, Article I §28, adopted in May 1971 by 

popular vote as organic law prohibiting denial or abridgment of equal rights based on sex, is 

somehow preempted by a mere statute promulgated by state legislators, i.e. the Pennsylvania 

Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. § 951 et. seq., in 1955. 

 3. Because Plaintiff has no administrative remedy, she cannot file her complaint of sexual 

harassment and discrimination with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC), 

since fewer than four individuals are employed by corporate defendant, the PHRA jurisdictional 

threshold, which defines "employer" as employing four or more employees, must be declared 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 4 Filed 09/04/2002 Page 1 of 2
unconstitutional under Article I § 28 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and under Article I § 26 

of the Pennsylvania Constitution, if defendants' motion is granted. 

 4. Defendants seek to overturn decades of solid, well considered judicial law, in arguing 

that Article I § 28 requires state action and does not apply to Plaintiff because she is not a 

government employee. 

 5. Defendants ignore clear statutory language and misstate the law in contending that the 

PHRA does not articulate public policy for purposes of Plaintiff's wrongful discharge claim. 

 6. Defendants improperly reply upon two unpublished common pleas decisions, which 

have no precedential value and were wrongly decided, to contradict holdings of the Pennsylvania 

Supreme Court and reported decisions law of the Eastern District U.S. Courts in Pennsylvania. 

 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court deny, dismiss and overrule 

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. In the alternative, if defendants' motion is granted, Plaintiff 

requests the jurisdictional threshold of the PHRA be struck down as unconstitutional. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 _____________________________ 

 Anita F. Alberts Esquire ID # 28086 

 Counsel for Plaintiff Dolores (Dee) Barrett 

 The Atrium Suite 2 West 

 301 South Main Street 

 Doylestown PA 18901 

 (215) 340-0700 

 FAX (215) 340-2747 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 4 Filed 09/04/2002 Page 2 of 2